:They're free to claim a straw-man, as long as they don't believe that their god isn't all good, doesn't dictate morality, isn't perfectly just... whether or not theists commonly use a specific term is irrelevant to whether or not the term applies to their concept of god. Without the concept of omnibenevolence, regardless of the term used, theodicy becomes a non-issue. In any case, there's no justification not to include the term, or the concept at the wiki. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

:They're free to claim a straw-man, as long as they don't believe that their god isn't all good, doesn't dictate morality, isn't perfectly just... whether or not theists commonly use a specific term is irrelevant to whether or not the term applies to their concept of god. Without the concept of omnibenevolence, regardless of the term used, theodicy becomes a non-issue. In any case, there's no justification not to include the term, or the concept at the wiki. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

::I think their arguments usually go more along the lines that God equals morality because he is the creator, meaning that everything that it does or commands is always moral. They also often say that it isn't supposed to be all-good, only absolutely just. Anyway, my point was that one should not assume that all theists believe their god is omnibenevolent. –[[User:Reinis|Reinis]] 03:45, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

::I think their arguments usually go more along the lines that God equals morality because he is the creator, meaning that everything that it does or commands is always moral. They also often say that it isn't supposed to be all-good, only absolutely just. Anyway, my point was that one should not assume that all theists believe their god is omnibenevolent. –[[User:Reinis|Reinis]] 03:45, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

+

:::We're not assuming that all theists believe anything (beyond the existence of something they call god) - I fact, we're not assuming anything. We're simply listing and responding to arguments and trying to cover as much ground as possible. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 11:13, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

+

::::OK, I'm just talking about something I've noticed that might be relevant to the article. –[[User:Reinis|Reinis]] 13:49, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 07:55, 26 June 2007

Not a common word

Actually, I usually only see atheists using this word, and never theists. The classical definition of the monotheistic deity is a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and perfect, so a theist can counter that you're making a straw-man. It should not be used. –Reinis 14:38, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

They're free to claim a straw-man, as long as they don't believe that their god isn't all good, doesn't dictate morality, isn't perfectly just... whether or not theists commonly use a specific term is irrelevant to whether or not the term applies to their concept of god. Without the concept of omnibenevolence, regardless of the term used, theodicy becomes a non-issue. In any case, there's no justification not to include the term, or the concept at the wiki. Sans Deity 16:35, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I think their arguments usually go more along the lines that God equals morality because he is the creator, meaning that everything that it does or commands is always moral. They also often say that it isn't supposed to be all-good, only absolutely just. Anyway, my point was that one should not assume that all theists believe their god is omnibenevolent. –Reinis 03:45, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

We're not assuming that all theists believe anything (beyond the existence of something they call god) - I fact, we're not assuming anything. We're simply listing and responding to arguments and trying to cover as much ground as possible. Sans Deity 11:13, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

OK, I'm just talking about something I've noticed that might be relevant to the article. –Reinis 13:49, 24 June 2007 (CDT)